Spartan117 wrote:Not sure but I think this "Immortal" thing is a popularity contest at best.

Ps - I don't like the Immortal Tag.

Hall of Fame is much better

I love how the NFL do their Hall of Fame and would like to see something similar in league. There's some excitement every year as the players are debated. And they make sure there is an allotment of older players that must be chosen, plus a variety of positions.

Plus I just like the pointless discussions. Does Renouf deserve a spot more than Matt Bowen? Vatuvei? Does Nathan Merritt get considered with 150 odd tries? Do Benji's good years outweigh his poor? Perfect chinwag for the fifth schooner.

It is plainly obvious that Holman was an outstanding footballer and provided much to the game on and off the field, but are we really going to give someone the Immortal tag despite never winning a first grade premiership?

The immortals were meant to stand above all others, Ive only seen 2 of the 8 immortals play, and for me both of them stand above all others. (Joey and Wally)

Both changed the game and I was amazed at there feats. Im happy for the to be immortals.

We originaly named 4 in 40 years, and have since added 4 more, 2 of which have been for deeds following in the next 25 odd years.

Now we want to name 3 or 4 from the last decade. If we not sure which of the 3 or 4 to name, maybe none of them stand above the rest. All are undoubtedly great, but the immortals are meant to be better than great!

I think we need a hall of fame. AFL do it well, and essentially only members of the hall of fame attend the inductions, it is a big deal.

We could do the same and the likes of Yappy Holman would be members for sure. We could even do a level above the hall of fame and name 1 per year, the AFL call the legends staus n the hall of fame.

In that case every time we see a great player we dont need to be calling for the to be the next immortal.

I don't think anyone else who retired pre-1990 should be inducted. I think what makes the tag so prestigious is that some of the names who miss out. I believe they need to take the best modern players and move along, and if a deserving player misses out then they are just unlucky. Holman falls in a category with Coote, Provan and Sterling of those who were on the top tier but were edged out. I would induct Meninga next, with Lockyer and JT on the table for future induction.

Marshall_magic wrote:I don't think anyone else who retired pre-1990 should be inducted. I think what makes the tag so prestigious is that some of the names who miss out. I believe they need to take the best modern players and move along, and if a deserving player misses out then they are just unlucky. Holman falls in a category with Coote, Provan and Sterling of those who were on the top tier but were edged out. I would induct Meninga next, with Lockyer and JT on the table for future induction.

Big mal was a top player but i don't think he's anywhere near an immortal. He was a bit of a flat track bully IMO. Gene miles was a far superior player.

Marshall_magic wrote:I don't think anyone else who retired pre-1990 should be inducted. I think what makes the tag so prestigious is that some of the names who miss out. I believe they need to take the best modern players and move along, and if a deserving player misses out then they are just unlucky. Holman falls in a category with Coote, Provan and Sterling of those who were on the top tier but were edged out. I would induct Meninga next, with Lockyer and JT on the table for future induction.

Totally disagree - Rugby League started in 1908, not 1990 and each era had it's great players that stood out during those periods. The trap is to think that because the game changes over the years that previous greats were not great by the current standards.

Someone once said that a great player would be great in any era ( and I also believe that) - great players would adapt to the current standard with ease. Ordinary players would adapt as well, but they would still be ordinary players.

You throw out players like Coote, Provan and Sterling, some at one stage mentioned Inglis and you want to put in Meninga and Lockyer - Thurston I agree with.

I think the induction to call players an Immortal should be very carefully considered. There are many many great players but very few Immortals. Unfortunately we already have a couple that have been given this status that should not have been, in my opinion (I am not thinking Johns). The new additions should be chosen very carefully. They should also be chosen from a player list that spans over one hundred years not just over 25 years.

I also think the NRL should take over the whole concept and not leave it to RLW. Call it whatever you like but it needs to be 100% authentic and not a case of shoving people in because .... They need to have earned the honour and it needs to be beyond reproach. Rant over with apologies.